I'm an associate editor at Forbes, part of the team responsible for our signature issues: The Forbes 400, Global Billionaires and America's Richest Families. As a writer, I cover these wealthy business builders as well as other entrepreneurs. Before Forbes, I also reported on entrepreneurs for Inc. magazine, and attended Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

Boehner's Millionaire Tax Hikes Move Us Closer To A Fiscal Cliff Deal

House Speaker John Boehner has made a decision that will make some wealthy Americans squeal, while making most Americans smile.

Boehner, after weeks of rhetoric that Republicans and Democrats were miles apart on fiscal cliff talks, relented on a stance that high earners shouldn’t see higher taxes. Now, Boehner has agreed to raise taxes on Americans making more than $1 million, reversing an earlier position that all Bush Era tax cuts should stand.

The move by Boehner is particularly significant for several reasons. First, it’s a gesture toward compromise— Democrats wanted taxes raised on Americans making more than $250,000, while Republicans, at first, would have none of it—and suggests the two sides may finally become serious about averting the fiscal cliff. Next, the tax hikes would increase federal coffers by some $1 trillion over 10 years; President Obama has demanded $1.4 trillion in new revenue, but at least the pols’ figures are growing closer. And Boehener’s decision is a refreshing signal that, when confronted with dire forecasts—like the one that predicts a recession to start 2013 if the fiscal cliff happens—Washington, D.C can put aside partisanism and past promises. Though, I imagine that Grover Norsquist takes little glee from Boehner’s shift.

Republicans are the first to sacrifice a sacred cow. Now, Democrats must too. What mostly impedes progress? Some $200 billion. That’s the difference between the spending cuts in federal health care programs that Republicans want ($600 billion) and Democrats want ($400 billion).

Investors will probably take this move by the pols as evidence that a deal will eventually come. We haven’t piled out of stocks quite like you might think. Indeed, the major benchmarks this month have gained about 4%. There hasn’t been that complete flight to safety—into the cash-generative arms of Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Walt Disney—and away from risk—fleeing the speculation around a Research In Motion comeback or better times for Alpha Natural.

Like clockwork, stocks this morning climbed higher. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 0.6% to 13,217.42. The S&P 500 gained 0.9% to 1,426.18. And the Nasdaq composite rose 0.9% to 2,999.11.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Are your numbers correct? I had hear that raising the taxes on people making over $250K/year would raise about $90B per year or about $900B over ten years. Your article claims that raising the taxes on just the people earning over $1M would yield $1T/year? Huh? That seems way off….

The USA does not have a taxing or revenue problem. We have a spending problem! The only way out is to decrease the spending. The politicians will just find ways to waste the increased taxes. And btw, those increased taxes on small businesses will “flow downhill” to the 47% that don’t pay taxes in the form of higher food and other costs.

what’s your definition of “small business” ??? AND What’s the Federal Government’s definition of “small business” ?? (I know that last answer — you can go look it up). My personal definition of “small business” is somewhat different from the gov’t's (or Wall Street’s — somehow I don’t see a company with 450 employees and a market cap of 25 million dollars and a CEO/owner who makes $1,000,000 a year as a “small business” even though both Wall Street and the government do), and I suspect you don’t have a clue.

To me, a “small business” is the wonderful family-owned seafood restaurant that went out of business because it couldn’t pay its rent any more after the landlord renegotiated the lease. A “small business” is the old-fashioned corner drugstore owned and operated by a competent and caring pharmacist who can’t afford to compete in terms of pricing with the CVS, Walgreen, and Rite-Aid in the mall ten miles away and whose customers don’t see the value in better service, wiser pharmaceutical advice, or the ability to compound from scratch (or special-order items that aren’t on the shelves, like your favorite color of lipstick). To me, a “small business” is the sole-proprietor dentist whose practice can’t compete with the 10-dentist “clinic” five miles away.

Perhaps I’m a bit dense, but how did the debate over the definition of a small business come in here?

For the record, I’d wager that there are many, many small business owners that would see higher taxes under Obama’s plan to raise taxers on wager-earners above $250K, but only the smallest sliver of SMB owners are likely to be hit in Boehner’s latest proposal (tax hikes for $1 million plus).

Inversely, you could look to the success of countries that haven’t been able to balance spending with revenues…Argentina, Ukraine, Russia, Iceland all come to mind. But then again, the ultimate goal is government dependence, so I guess that fits well with your plan.